Some very true points made here. Individuals from both parties are guilty of the mindset you describe, which seems to be a common path to statist ideology. The irony is that the “my worldview is right so I should enforce it on everyone else”-mentality results in a complete contradiction of otherwise sacrosanct principles held by statists on the left and right. The religious right makes fierce appeal to the Constitution and states’ rights when it comes to big government federal “stimulus” projects, for example, but runs roughshod over it themselves if it means enforcing their desired drug laws religious code on everyone. Similarly, the left parades their belief in civil liberties and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights while simultaneously calling for U.S. subservience to the dictates of an International Criminal Court and United Nations. Especially ironic is the insistence for tolerance and open-mindedness towards other peoples and value systems, while it’s advocated in the same breath that one’s own particular views be enforced upon the entire country by the national government. The consistent, moral conclusion that ought to be reached is that per rule of law, such things should unconditionally be left to the states. Alas, this is completely lost on them.

There seems to be a variety of utilitarian ideologies, but they all tend to place the goal of highest overall utility over other accepted principles. Unfortunately the utilitarian view seems to be the trend for most economists–at least as a default position–as they tend to advocate policies based on what they believe will bring the most benefit rather than based upon other principles. While the important distinction of normative vs positive analysis is often made in the classroom, it’s usually lost on students being taught mainstream theory.

(Having said that, your characterization of economists would be more accurate if you placed “Keynesian,” or “central planning” before it XD–for there are still a few whose hands are clean of such madness [like Robert Higgs])

Some believe that the application of consistent morals and principles will always result in the greatest potential for utility (individually and collectively), and use that conclusion to argue for the adherence to morals and principles. This strategy is often employed by well-meaning academics who can give compelling arguments to show this is the case. However, while I generally agree this is the case, and while this may be an important way to convert others to the importance of following true principles, it should be recognized that the first concern should be adherence to moral standards, and only secondly the goal of the greatest utility.

Of course, as Jake pointed out, the discussion is moot for nihilists–as without any moral standards there is no reason to respect the happiness of another, nor is there any standard of utility whatsoever.

P.S. I must say, the Bastiat quote is strikingly anarcho-capitalist in flavor. Stick in a couple more state functions in there and he’s a full-fledged anarchist XD

Often utilitarians claim amorality and that they are above those petty disagreements, but I don’t see how that can be. If cocaine (or place any other vice here) would create more pleasure, or utils, if the government hands it out for free (subsidizing by taxation of productive individuals), then it is justifiable. However, the fact that my productivity enables what I consider to be immoral behavior demonstrates that the amoral stance has no substance.